9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the present case are that the assesse is manufacturer of corrugated boxes and they had availed the credit of the service tax paid on input services on the basis of invoices addressed to their Yeshwanthpur unit. Notice dated 23.07.2013 was issued demanding recovery/reversal ofRs. 1,15,505/- availed during the period August 2008 to February 2012. The adjudicating authority after considering the reply confirmed the demand made in the notice along with equal penalty. Appeal was filed by the assessee and in the Order-in-Appeal No.110/2017 dated 14/02/2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), it was noted that the assessee had not furnished the documents before the original authority to show receipt and consumption of the input serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory which is placed on record. He further submitted that though appellant had sent intimation to all the service providers about the shifting of their manufacturing activity from Yeshwanthpur to Doddabalapur but in spite of that some of the suppliers continued to address the invoice to Yeshwanthpur factory though the services were rendered at Doddaballapur unit. Further, it is a fact that from 2008, Doddaballapur factory started working which itself shows that services were meant for Doddaballapur factory and not Yeshwanthpur factory which totally stopped working since January 2010. Learned consultant further submitted that the appellant have produced all the invoices before the lower authority as well as before the Commissioner (A) bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing the returns for Doddaballapur unit showing the availment of CENVAT credit which clearly shows that there is no suppression on the part of the appellant to avail the irregular CENVAT credit. He further submitted that the entire demand is barred by limitation because the show-cause notice was issued on 23.7.2013 pertaining to the CENVAT credit availed during the period August 2008 to February 2012. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that mainly the CENVAT credit has been denied to the appellant on the ground that the invoices are addressed to their Yeshwanthpur unit whereas the services were availed at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edit was detected during audit otherwise it would have gone unnoticed. Whereas the appellant has been filing the returns regularly for Doddaballapur unit and has been showing the credit availed. Appellant has also produced the copies of the returns filed by him from Doddaballapur factory under the Service Tax Rules which clearly indicate the availment of credit on the disputed invoices. In view of this, it cannot be said that the appellant has suppressed the material fact with intent to evade payment of tax. Therefore, I hold that on merit as well as on limitation, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Therefore, I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant.
(Order was pronounced in Open Court on 11/06/2019.) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
